Disadvantages to headless basses?

[Frank77]

What is that bass exactly? I love the look of that headless!

It is a custom build from a local luthier. The hardware is Hipshot (takes regular strings).

 

[Zooberwerx]

Please,...do tell. What would you leave by the curb? And what do you think it key to have?

Headpiece / String Clamping: I prefer double ball-ends but people are picky about their strings. The hands-down winner is Zon Vinny which requires bending the string at 90 deg, insertion downward thru the headpiece with each string having its own locking grub screw. To top it off, there's a split top-loaded retainer bar which clamps down the whole schmear. Other designs are less than overwhelming as they can crush / damage the string.

Tuner: My favorite is NS Design which clamps the string...2nd place goes to the Kubicki Ex Factor. Both require the strings to be installed backwards so tapered / exposed core strings are out-of-contention. I've had no problems with the traditional Steinberger-esque micrometers. The aforementioned NS Design is somewhat offset by the uni-body piezo bridge saddle...it was not my favorite.

These were the first things that came to mind...

Riis

 

[yodedude2]

The Marusczcyk uses ABM.

i once had a headless with the abm system. i had no issues with the abm hardware other than weight. it was sturdy and easy to use, and i never had a lick of functional issues with it.

 

[ThinCrappyTone]

I know that the look of a headless bass is a turnoff to many people. Regardless, I am considering buying one (a very expensive one). I have owned 800 billion basses in my life, but never a headless.

The claimed advantages are many (less weight, better weight distribution, no dead spots, better tuning, etc.). But to those of you that have played them extensively, are there any disadvantages with a headless bass? Anything that drove you crazy that I might be missing?

And just to be clear, the headless I'd be buying would be able to accommodate any strings. It wouldn't require double ball ends. So that wouldn't be a disadvantage.

Thanks in advance for any input.

There are only two negatives to headless, imo:

1) some people don’t like the look and will tell you so.

2) can’t use a standard wall hanger

Beside that, every other aspect is an improvement IME: balance, weight, portability, tuning stability, easier to wield in tight spaces like a home studio.

Also, for me, tuning at the bridge is a godsend. With my shoulder issues, reaching out to tune at the headstock is painful.

Another weird but useful benefit is you can set a lot of headless models on the floor without a stand, due to the way the bodies are shaped at the bridge.

I have two headless muckelroy 4’s and a kiesel vader 8 (guitar) and they are all I play now.

 

[Tori2013]

5 minute review: The headstock/neck junction is one of my indexes and the lack of it throws me off.

 

[redwood]

Check out my sig photo. I received this bass not too long ago. I may never go back to a "headed" instrument.
Dead Spots? Not that I can find. It's a wood neck, but with multiple c.f. strips built in.
Strings? No double ball end needed. Might take longer than 2 minutes but it's still better than with a standard tuning pegs. No chance of twisting the string which I think is overlooked by many when complaining about "one string in the pack was dead".
Hanger? This beauty fits fine in my wall hanger without issue.
Stand? It also works fine with a stand that is the swivel lower portion. It'a a little older school but works just fine. Also, the manufacturer makes an inexpensive, fold up stand that works well I'm told.
Hand slipping off the end? Never had it happen.
The only reason I'll miss the head stock is that one time I smacked my guitarist in the back of the head with it. Did he deserve it? Maybe. Was it an accident? Maybe. Maybe not. I'll never tell.

 

[ctmullins]

I built me one recently. I really like it. No disadvantages other than the wall hanger issue.

Unlike others, I have no trouble with double ball strings, can tune with my right hand easily, and am not plagued by dead spots.

 

[Bob_Ross]

Cons specific to the Steinberger: guitar stands - not a one works.

Any of the ones that look like this work great with the Steinberger L-series basses
Link Removed

One of the lower horizontal tines of the "fork" goes in between the bridge/tuning machine and the body; that notch in the Steinberger's design is tailor-made for this support arm. The other horizontal arm/tine/thing winds up supporting the outside edge of the body.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Absolutely none for me, providing your headless bass can accept regular strings.
So good on tight stages too.

Just do it!
Dirk

 

[bassliner50]

Man, they ug!!!!

 

[Scootbass1]

I wish I had the guts to show up at jazz gigs with a Steinberger whammy bar bass. Seeing the look of confusion on the faces of all the jazz nerds would be a trip!

It was quite a stink eye generator at the jazz and blues oriented jams I used to attend. The bass players and drummers were cool with it, but the purist horn and guitarists were not and were quite vocal about it. I don't play it much now since I have lost the transposing pin for the tremelo. It is a vital part that is necessary to get the thing tuned and set up for proper operation. I need to find the specification and dimensions to have a couple made for it. I personally find no cons or shortcomings to the headless basses I have and do own. The pros have been mentioned and covered quite well. My biggest pros are great ergonomics, tuning stability, consistency of tone, and they are excellent for small or tight stages. Strings are really not an issue these days, but in the 80's and 90's I would save up and order 12 double ball sets at a time through my local music store. These days it is a few clicks on the internet and they are on their way to your place. I am loving the resurgence of headless designs these days, and the new makers have some beautiful looking offerings. I am considering getting another Status Graphite headless bass, but that is some time down the road from now.
Peace to all,
Mike

 

[Susqmike]

I know that the look of a headless bass is a turnoff to many people. Regardless, I am considering buying one (a very expensive one). I have owned 800 billion basses in my life, but never a headless.

The claimed advantages are many (less weight, better weight distribution, no dead spots, better tuning, etc.). But to those of you that have played them extensively, are there any disadvantages with a headless bass? Anything that drove you crazy that I might be missing?

And just to be clear, the headless I'd be buying would be able to accommodate any strings. It wouldn't require double ball ends. So that wouldn't be a disadvantage.

Thanks in advance for any input.

I love my Kiesel Vader-6! Is a great bass.

 

[Siggy]

No head stock to stop your hand from flying off the neck?

 

[bassdude51]

Some think that a headstock is a factor in tone and sound. For some strange reason, when a "Fat Finger" is attached to a headstock, the sound of the bass changes for the better.

Did you get to "test drive" the headless bass that you are gonna buy?

On the other hand, Johnny Winter played a headless guitar. Says something.

 

[LoTone]

Are you into Level 42? That would be my excuse to get a headless bass.

 

[foothilla]

I have three headless basses all of which I love. One is by Fodera and the other two are by Erkan Sizarlar, a luthier in Izmir, Turkey. At one point, I was travelling a lot and wanted to have a bass which would fit into a guitar gig bag and could be taken on board of an airplane.

The Fodera is a 33-inch Matt Garrison-shape bass with ash body and neck and an Indian rosewood fingerboard. It has one pickup, and a custom-designed Mike Pope preamp with all the controls in the cavity adjustable with trim pots (the only thing on the bass is an output jack like Anthony Jackson's). It is a bolt-on by the way and that bass really sings!

Imperial MG 5 Bolt-On Headless - Fodera

The other two are set-neck with alder bodies, ash necks and maple and cocobolo fingerboards. The one with the maple fingerboard is 33" and it has a pair of Nordstrand Fat Stacks with volume-volume-tone-tone controls (passive), and the cocobolo-fingerboarded one is 34" and it has one Nordstrand Big Split pickup and a Audere preamp with all the controls in the cavity (like the Fodera).

All three basses are five stringers tuned E-C.

As far as these basses are concerned:

- there are no dead spots,
- they are very stable (more of a neck-related condition, I believe), and
- they are very balanced (no neck dive).

I find tuning from the body side much more practical than tuning from the headstock anyway, so I am very happy with these instruments. Highly recommended...

Whoa! I'm having a "love at first" sight moment with your Fodera! That thing is BADASS!

 

[foothilla]

I found the "single cut" design more of a hinderance to be honest.

What didn't you like about the single cut?

 

[39-Bassist]

Well besides what has already been said...nothing...BUT an advantage is if the bass falls over, you won't break the headstock.

 

[foothilla]

It is a custom build from a local luthier. The hardware is Hipshot (takes regular strings).

Love it, man! Very cool looking headless. I hope it sounds and plays as good as it looks.

 

[Frank77]

Love it, man! Very cool looking headless. I hope it sounds and plays as good as it looks.

Thanks! It does play and sound very nice. The funny thing is that despite its rather modern look, it sounds more "vintage" than my traditional design LB-100 (G&L's P-bass) due to the Aguilar pickups!

I have plenty of room in the control cavity to add a preamp and a battery if I ever want to go active, but I like it as-is.